Lotus wrote:I don't care what people on here think, so it's really not a concern if I look bad or not. [...] I'm just making comments on an internet forum. I'm not taking this particularly seriously and trying to build a roadmap for how we live. Overly-simplistic it may be, that's my view. [...] I get the feeling you guys care about this topic a lot more than I do, and I've pretty much given the extent of my thoughts on it here.
Okay! I care a lot, but I'm not trying to force you to. You don't
have to care. All I'll say is that if you genuinely don't care then I think that offers us an interesting way to contextualise your posts.
Lotus wrote:While the Guardian piece may be looking to illustrate the social context, it doesn't explain why it isn't a double-standard, like the sub-heading claims. Men lusting after women is bad, women lusting after men is fine - that's a double-standard, like it or not. Sure you can look at the past, power dynamics, whatever, but treating one gender differently to another is what that is. My argument is that if we're looking for equality in how we treat people and equality in opportunity, that's what we do, not look for different reasons why the rules shouldn't apply to some people.
I think the problem is that you are viewing these as "rules" rather than as arguments about whether particular scenarios for social interactions are acceptable. There's a subtle but important difference there. Of course "men lusting after women" isn't inherently "bad" (if that were true we would struggle to propagate the species!) any more so than the inverse is inherently "fine".
In the scenario outlined in The Guardian's article - a critic remarking upon the looks of an actor - there are a couple of factors at play. What message does the expression of lust send, and what impact will it have upon the object of that lust? Because by our traditional cultural standards men are encouraged to express their sexuality and women are belittled for their sexuality, a female critic writing that an actor is sexy is subverting that patriarchal ideal at no real damage to the man involved. (It's a rule of thumb, and the "appropriateness" could change hugely based on the individuals involved -- again, nuance!) On the other hand, a male critic leering at an actress will be read as a cultural reinforcement of male sexual power over women, and may well embarrass the actress and/or cause her work to be taken less seriously.
I am not a philosopher but I'm at least naively a
consequentialist when it comes to matters of ethics. I think you should look at the consequences of your actions to assess their morality, rather than just seeking to fulfil a set of rules. I think rules-based thinking often works in our imaginations but falls down when presented with real, muddy situations ("out here in the human world"!).
Lotus wrote:Presumably there are other double-standards you think are acceptable, and so I'd wonder at which point they no longer become acceptable - who decides when the power dynamic has shifted enough, when historical context no longer applies, when nuances no longer need to be considered. I'm not denying there's social inequality, but I don't see the issue with the over-arching principle of holding everybody to the same standard.
I don't know when we'll know, but I know we aren't there now.
Lotus wrote:On feminism, I agree with the core principles; men and women deserving equality in opportunity, treatment, respect, social rights, etc.
If you truly in your heart believe this, then congrats -- you are feminist, whether you want to be or not. You aren't a terribly effective feminist though. For instance, you seem to have...
Lotus wrote:My issue with feminism - at least in its current form - is that its rife with hypocrisy, a victimhood mentality, in-fighting, pettiness...I don't feel the need to label myself as a feminist or associate with it as a movement.
...a lot of internalised misogyny here. Yeah, feminism isn't a hive-mind and its branches don't always agree, but do you hold other organisations & social movements to this standard? I think you're unknowingly regurgitating really cynical rhetoric used to undermine feminism.
(I'll ignore "affirmative action" -- a red herring. In your head that probably means quotas and all sorts of other implementation details that are a subject of active debate at the moment. I was only trying to convince you that there's worth in seeing someone's attributes and giving them a little mull over when you're interviewing your candidates, rather than pretending "all else is equal".)
Lotus wrote:I was referring to some of your posts on matters of politics and what's right and wrong and the unfounded air of superiority that accompanies them (IMO, of course).
Hey, sorry if I come across as having an "air of superiority". It's not intentional, I'm just not very good at talking to people. OTOH, by your own admission you don't care about this very much and I do, so maybe that's why I come across as having a relatively high level of confidence in the correctness of my beliefs.